Chris Williamson, as part of a longer interview with Eric Weinstein, asks what he thinks of Kamala’s vacuous, much-repeated phrase “What can be, unburdened by what has been.”
He traces it directly back to Marxist thought.
EW: “There’s a line in Marx where [pause] Sometimes you hear certain phrases Like ‘A World to Win.’ AOC uses the phrase ‘We Have A World to Win,’ which comes from the end of The Communist Manifesto.”
EW: “It basically says you have to wipe out what has been to arrive in the new. And where’s it from what can be unburdened by what has been. It’s not a direct translation, but it occurs in Karl Marx.”
EW: “If you think about what Mao had to do to wipe out Chinese history, what Pol Pot had to do, you’re trying to wipe out memory, because the memory has all of this burden.”
EW: “Why do you think is it important to go after doctors and lawyers and teachers and professors? Because in some sense they are going to resist the New Order that you’re about to impose. You’re looking for a blank slate.” That’s why after the Khmer Rouge took over, they called it “Year Zero.”
On a trip to Vietnam, Weinstein sees the complex Dan Bau musical instrument in a window.
I become transfixed by it, and a woman says “I see you looking at this” in English. “Would you like to come in?” I said I don’t want to impose. She says “No, no, no, it’s not mine.” So she invites me in, and there’s this guy who appears to be brain dead. He’s like deformed. I’m not going to get through this. And he’s speaking very haltingly and I don’t know who he is. Something about music, something about journalism, something about a professional. I can’t really make out what’s happening. I’m asking about the instrument, and this woman brings him a guitar, and this deformed man starts playing some transcription, like Chopin, or some piano concerto on the guitar, at some incredible level. And I can’t even imagine that his body can do it, and so I have no idea where I am or what’s happening. And then he motions for like a book, and she brings a book. And it has all of these articles about this man tortured for his principled stand against communism. This man has been destroyed mind, body, to the point where it’s just painful to watch him.
Weinstein brings up the topic of a “nail house,” a house where the owner refuses to leave, so Chinese authorities literally build a road around their house.
EW: “They’ll build a highway to screw over the person who stands up and says ‘I will not move,’ and the idea is that that road is the future unburdened by what has been, and then there’s some hold out who won’t go along with the program.” Or as the Maoist proverb puts it, “The nail that stands up shall be hammered down.”
Weinstein asks Williamson if he knows what Harris’ father did for a living. He does not, but we know that her father was a Marxist professor. “As a man whose family comes from the far left, you recognize certain sorts of commonalities.”
Weinstein asserts that the Democratic Party is not communist, “But it is welcomed in a lot of neo-Marxian thought.” I would go further and say that the current ideological core of the Democratic Party is are true believers in Marxist social justice. “I would say AOC is straight up Marxist. I think Kamala is everywhere between crony finance and Marxism.”
Williamson thinks Harris is “unsophisticated,” but Weinstein disagrees. “Nothing in politics happens by accident.”
I believe that most Americans would prefer not to live through a Khmer Rouge Year Zero.
[…] SHE IS A CREEPY COMMIE: The Creepy Commie Origins of Kamala’s Catchphrase. “If you think about what Mao had to do to wipe out Chinese history, what Pol Pot had to do, […]
Started watching this very interview just last night. It’s long but almost every minute has solid nuggets of learned lessons and how to observe the words politicians use.
At the same time, I’m reading the Gulag Archipelago and am seeing parallels with the media and gov’t alliances.
“‘Why do you think is it important to go after doctors and lawyers and teachers and professors? Because in some sense they are going to resist the New Order that you’re about to impose. You’re looking for a blank slate.’”
Christian-Judeo anthropology posits man as being made in God’s image. To create a blank slate, man as God’s image bearer must be erased. Death and misery attend on all who endeavor to sweep away the Bitter Clingers and replace them with the New Soviet Man.
IOW:
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past”
Or…
“Baby, the reason I beat the shit outta you is ’cause I love you so much, see?”
A good insight into the nature of Keynesian economics comes from Keynes having written the title page to the German edition of his General Theory of Employment.
There Keynes suggests that “his theoretical framework would prove more applicable to a totalitarian system than would a theory based on Classical laissez-faire economics. Comments in the Preface which seem to some to support Nazism should be taken, then, as support for the applicability of his theory to such a system.”
Hitler and Keynes go together like milk and cookies.
Unlike classical Keynesian theory, Neo-Keynesian theory accepts the reality of “supply-side” economic phenomena. Modern Monetary Theory is attenuated National Socialism.
Kamala Harris’ father was an advocate of Lenin’s NEP, which allows a small number of farmers to escape the collective so as to stave off starvation. This is the “supply problem” that stymied Keynes and Lenin alike.
There is a thin line between International Socialism and National Socialism. Kamala Harris could thrive in either element. If the antiSemites prevail in her party, she of course would embrace her inner NAZI.
Given the ownership and distribution of arms in the US, a Year Zero in the US would be very different than in Cambodia. Not less bloody, but different.
My wife and I are walking a portion of the Camino in Spain. A few days ago we ran across a a conservative British couple who were pretty current on American politics, but they hadn’t heard my preferred pronunciation of Mr. Walz’s running mate’s name: Commie-La.
Williamson has some interesting guests on his podcast, but he is about the most naive character I’ve ever seen.
Bear in mind, many things he says or questions he asks are on behalf of “the third chair” in the room, i.e. the audience. While he and Eric may fully understand an idea and be able to talk past it with the greatest of ease, that does not make for an informative and appealing podcast episode … not everyone listening knows what they already know, but everyone listening does want to be educated.
Therefore some portion of the conversation is akin to narrative “exposition” to help bring the audience up to speed for the meat of the conversation that’s coming.
Plus, for their own sakes, reiterating some shared knowledge helps spur the conversation.
I’ve seen Triggernometry interview Eric Weinstein. I love their podcast and their style, and yet … when they interview EW they come across as intimidated.
I’ve seen Joe Rogan interview Eric Weinstein. Joe does well, and yet … EW often goes into tangents or the appearance of self-assuredness that it’s less satisfying to watch.
I’ve seen Chris Williamson interview Eric Weinstein. These interviews are just so pleasing and beneficial to watch. For one, Chris has no fear of making Eric explain things. “Say more about that.” Whereas some hosts seem to want to avoid looking dumb, Chris comes across as insecure and willing to force Eric to “show his work.” I also sense Eric learning or discovering on-the-fly sometimes in these discussions. He’s just as willing to say to Chris, “Say more about that.”
Moreover, when Chris interviews, I find I can watch it over and over, and never tire. Also, somehow, I can watch an interview that’s a year old, and even if it’s topical to the time, discussing then-current events, it still feels fresh.
It’s like a good dance. Back-and-forth. One doesn’t dominate the other – neither the interviewer or the interviewee. Lex Fridman is also very talented at this.
Notice how this Kamala Harris bears little resemblance to the person we’re seeing now on the campaign trail. She spoke off the cuff, without a teleprompter, and was far more articulate and self-assured than anything she displays now. There was none of the word salad she’s now known for. That’s likely because that was the real Kamala Harris. She was expressing her true opinions on a subject about which she had actually thought. She’s wasn’t trying to pretend to be something she isn’t as she now does daily
I believe that most Americans would prefer not to live through a Khmer Rouge Year Zero.
It depends on the day. Some days, I’m thinking “300 million plus guns in private hands. Yes, PLEASE try to start something so extreme that we just get teh guns out and start shooting all of you.
And keep on shooting until the Dems have been set back 50 years.”
“What can be, unburdened by what has been.” sounds like a bad sophomore parody of Khalil Gibran.
[…] SHE IS A CREEPY COMMIE: The Creepy Commie Origins of Kamala’s Catchphrase. “If you think about what Mao had to do to wipe out Chinese history, what Pol Pot had to do, […]
The base of the Democrat party is Marxist. The so-called “hard left” which is in fact driving the party and its mainstream thought.
And if anybody wants to cavil that it’s only a small fringe, recall that “Bolshevik” literally means “majority party,” and they were never a majority.
Started watching this very interview just last night. It’s long but almost every minute has solid nuggets of learned lessons and how to observe the words politicians use.
At the same time, I’m reading the Gulag Archipelago and am seeing parallels with the media and gov’t alliances.
Meme seen in the wild today:
Q: Why don’t I like Marxism?
A: Because I like food more than I hate rich people!
“‘Why do you think is it important to go after doctors and lawyers and teachers and professors? Because in some sense they are going to resist the New Order that you’re about to impose. You’re looking for a blank slate.’”
Christian-Judeo anthropology posits man as being made in God’s image. To create a blank slate, man as God’s image bearer must be erased. Death and misery attend on all who endeavor to sweep away the Bitter Clingers and replace them with the New Soviet Man.
Williamson has some interesting guests on his podcast, but he is about the most naive character I’ve ever seen.
“[S]ounds like a bad sophomore parody of Khalil Gibran.”
It is foolish to underestimate her mendacity.
IOW:
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past”
Or…
“Baby, the reason I beat the shit outta you is ’cause I love you so much, see?”
Williamson: What is neo-Keynesian economics?
A good insight into the nature of Keynesian economics comes from Keynes having written the title page to the German edition of his General Theory of Employment.
There Keynes suggests that “his theoretical framework would prove more applicable to a totalitarian system than would a theory based on Classical laissez-faire economics. Comments in the Preface which seem to some to support Nazism should be taken, then, as support for the applicability of his theory to such a system.”
Hitler and Keynes go together like milk and cookies.
Unlike classical Keynesian theory, Neo-Keynesian theory accepts the reality of “supply-side” economic phenomena. Modern Monetary Theory is attenuated National Socialism.
Kamala Harris’ father was an advocate of Lenin’s NEP, which allows a small number of farmers to escape the collective so as to stave off starvation. This is the “supply problem” that stymied Keynes and Lenin alike.
There is a thin line between International Socialism and National Socialism. Kamala Harris could thrive in either element. If the antiSemites prevail in her party, she of course would embrace her inner NAZI.
Given the ownership and distribution of arms in the US, a Year Zero in the US would be very different than in Cambodia. Not less bloody, but different.
My wife and I are walking a portion of the Camino in Spain. A few days ago we ran across a a conservative British couple who were pretty current on American politics, but they hadn’t heard my preferred pronunciation of Mr. Walz’s running mate’s name: Commie-La.
@NorthOfTheOneOhOne
Bear in mind, many things he says or questions he asks are on behalf of “the third chair” in the room, i.e. the audience. While he and Eric may fully understand an idea and be able to talk past it with the greatest of ease, that does not make for an informative and appealing podcast episode … not everyone listening knows what they already know, but everyone listening does want to be educated.
Therefore some portion of the conversation is akin to narrative “exposition” to help bring the audience up to speed for the meat of the conversation that’s coming.
Plus, for their own sakes, reiterating some shared knowledge helps spur the conversation.
TL/DR – no need to sell him short.
I’ve seen Triggernometry interview Eric Weinstein. I love their podcast and their style, and yet … when they interview EW they come across as intimidated.
I’ve seen Joe Rogan interview Eric Weinstein. Joe does well, and yet … EW often goes into tangents or the appearance of self-assuredness that it’s less satisfying to watch.
I’ve seen Chris Williamson interview Eric Weinstein. These interviews are just so pleasing and beneficial to watch. For one, Chris has no fear of making Eric explain things. “Say more about that.” Whereas some hosts seem to want to avoid looking dumb, Chris comes across as insecure and willing to force Eric to “show his work.” I also sense Eric learning or discovering on-the-fly sometimes in these discussions. He’s just as willing to say to Chris, “Say more about that.”
Moreover, when Chris interviews, I find I can watch it over and over, and never tire. Also, somehow, I can watch an interview that’s a year old, and even if it’s topical to the time, discussing then-current events, it still feels fresh.
It’s like a good dance. Back-and-forth. One doesn’t dominate the other – neither the interviewer or the interviewee. Lex Fridman is also very talented at this.
Ugh, I meant the opposite of “insecure” there. He doesn’t come across as insecure.
Something’s changed with Kamala from just a few years ago.
Notice how this Kamala Harris bears little resemblance to the person we’re seeing now on the campaign trail. She spoke off the cuff, without a teleprompter, and was far more articulate and self-assured than anything she displays now. There was none of the word salad she’s now known for. That’s likely because that was the real Kamala Harris. She was expressing her true opinions on a subject about which she had actually thought. She’s wasn’t trying to pretend to be something she isn’t as she now does daily
Man, the way DemoCommies treat their voters.
I believe that most Americans would prefer not to live through a Khmer Rouge Year Zero.
It depends on the day. Some days, I’m thinking “300 million plus guns in private hands. Yes, PLEASE try to start something so extreme that we just get teh guns out and start shooting all of you.
And keep on shooting until the Dems have been set back 50 years.”